AIC's 52nd Annual Meeting

Created in 1936, Meret Oppenheim's Object is perhaps the best known artwork from the artist’s oeuvre. The spectacle and absurdity of the fur-lined porcelain teacup, saucer, and metal spoon provoked immediate fascination, derision, and notoriety. Almost instantly, Object, became synonymous with the Surrealist movement and part of the art historical canon, entering the collection of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) shortly after its creation. Over time, the fascination with the artwork never waned, yet the exact nature of the materials used to create Object have not been fully understood for almost a century. Originally described by the artist as being made with the “pelt of a Chinese gazelle”, conflicting historical records, purposeful obfuscation by the artist, and a lack of concrete analysis have put this attribution into question in recent years. Accurate species attribution for objects that contain animal fur provides invaluable insight into the making and significance of the piece, the understanding of inherent degradation patterns, and conservation treatments. Beyond this, it dictates crucial implications for travelling and loans.




This investigation, undertaken by the David Booth Conservation Department at MoMA, revisits the species identification of the fur used to create Object by combining archival research with scientific analysis. The most common method for species identification in the field is polarized light microscopy. However, this technique relies heavily on accessible, robust data sets that outline the morphological and optical characteristics of hairs from different species so that accurate comparisons can be made. Restricted by a severe lack of comparative resources, especially for non-North American mammals, polarized light microscopy only identified the likely order of which the animal was classified. Upholding the longstanding tradition of borrowing from other fields, a collaboration with the Department of Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and Dr. Dan Kirby, conservation scientist, offered access to techniques not commonly used in conservation.




DNA analysis offered a more accurate method for identification by sequencing the genetic information from samples that can then be compared to libraries for identification. However, the age of the sample, prior treatments, and contamination from handling over its lifetime affected the efficacy of this technique. To mitigate these contamination factors, the less common technique of mitochondrial genetic sequencing was undertaken. Comparatively, MALDI-TOF peptide mass fingerprinting (PMF) was also conducted on hide samples taken from Object with the goal of obtaining species information through collagen analysis. PMF analyzes the specific mass of peptides from collagen samples, which are then compared to a database containing known protein sequences to achieve species identification. This technique has the benefit of being highly sensitive and the potential for overcoming contamination issues. However, it is again highly reliant on robust databases for comparison.




This presentation explores the advantages of combining these techniques, as well as their individual disadvantages, and argues for the benefit of using complementary analytical methods. Furthermore, this research demonstrates how the combination of traditional and modern analytical techniques with conservation and art historical practices can add a greater overall understanding of art objects.